|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Has any one been able to successfully split the DTN data feed
into a several computers for TS 4.0 or 2000i ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If so what hardware was used and what is the source to obtain
it . I have spoken to B-B electronics in IL but have not had any
luck ...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Any comments would be appreciated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Richard</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Wed Jan 19 01:14:20 2000
Return-Path: <listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from mail.thetrellis.net ([208.179.56.11])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA05960
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:16:55 -0800
Received: from REALTRADERS.COM
([208.179.56.198])
by mail.thetrellis.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:10:16 -0800
Received: from lh2.rdc1.bc.home.com by realtraders.com
with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R)
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:04:41 +0000
Received: from cs819150a ([24.65.28.95]) by lh2.rdc1.bc.home.com
(InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP
id <20000118164411.KKJR1189.lh2.rdc1.bc.home.com@xxxxxxxxx>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:44:11 -0800
Message-ID: <00fe01bf61d3$3e37c7e0$5f1c4118@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "Glen Wallace" <gwallace@xxxxxxxx>
From: "Glen Wallace" <gcwallace@xxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <tinyeung@xxxxxxxx>
References: <388390A3.880DAFE4@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [RT] Re: AD, CD -- a smack upside the head
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:43:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Return-Path: gcwallace@xxxxxxxx
Sender: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MDMailing-List: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MDSend-Notifications-To: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Mervin:
Since no one else smacked you upside the head, I will. I'm not being
callous or insulting, in fact I wish someone had smacked me when I made
your same mistakes.
Your analysis is irrelevant. You are so terribly overtrading, you are
*going* to blow out your account. Quadrupling your account is admirable,
but if you keep taking on so much risk, you will be out of the market in 3
months. Your trade sizes are so large for your account, anything less than
100% accurate analysis spells disaster.
Until you complete a proper study of trade exits, risk management and
money management, the only CD contracts you should be buying are the
ones offered by your bank.
My apologies if I embarrassed you. That is not my intent.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mervin Yeung <tinyeung@xxxxxxxx>
To: <Jpilleafe@xxxxxxx>
Sent: January 17, 2000 13:58
Subject: AD, CD
> Hi Jim,
>
> This mail was originally intended for RT Forum. It didn't go through.
>
> It is interesting to find out the more I know, the harder I am hit. In
> Oct. 1998, deflationary pressure was rising in the US. I was long
> T-Bond. I was making money; then suddenly, out of the blue, T-Bond
> collapsed. Now, we know what has happened. Look at the M3 growth rate
> in the last quarter in 1998. It was at an annualized rate of 21%! The
> Fed was going to cut rates aggressively and planned to flood the
> financial market with liquidity. This would cause the stock bubble to
> expand enormously. I didn't think that the Fed would be this stupid.
> Anyway, that was exactly what happened and I was burned badly. T-bond
> feared that the Fed was going to sacrifice the bond market in order to
> keep the stock market going.
>
> I was selling short stock market at the same time. When t-bond
> collapsed suddenly and violently, I figured it out something was wrong.
> I covered my short positions in stock indices and made a nice profit of
> it.
>
> Then, using my textbook knowledge, I expected central banks in W.Europe
> would hold rates unchanged and the Fed would cut interest rates.
> According to textbook theory, I should go long D.Mark & S.Franc and go
> short USD because real interest rate differential will benefit European
> currencies. I did exactly that and I was waiting the textbook theory to
> show me the money. I went long 4 D.Mark contracts and 4 S.Franc
> contracts and I was way over-traded; because I trusted the textbook.
> That was my worst trade. When the Fed cut interest
> rates, D.Mark and S.Franc simply fell apart. USD blasted off when the
> Fed cut interest rates. It was incredible. Remember I have turned my
> original $10,000 into $40,000 before these stupid trades. Due to these
> stupid trades, I was back to my starting point.
>
> From that point on, I really didn't care about what those stupid
> textbooks said.
>
> On June 8, 1999, I went long Jap.Yen because of my fundamental analysis
> and technical analysis. Looking back, I was right. But, a few days
> after I entered, Bank of Japan stepped in and bought $30 billion USD in
> a series of 7 interventions. Thank God it was only $30 billion. I was
> burned very badly but I still had something left. If BoJ had bought $30
> trillion instead of $30 billion, I would have been dead.
>
> I have not touched Jap.Yen since that unhappy experience. If BoJ had
> not intervened the forex market, I would have made US$25,000 per
> contract. I was long 3 contracts. (That was overtrading, sure, but I
> was too confident on my analysis.) After the interventions were over,
> Jap.Yen soared.
>
> In the last days of 1999, yen was making a technical platform and I
> expected yen to blast off. But, I also expected BoJ to intervene. So,
> I didn't do anything. BoJ intervened the market and yen fell sharply.
> Fortunately, I didn't have any positions.
>
> I was selling short t-bond all the way from the last millennium to the
> new millennium and I was making money. You know what, Treasury
> Department decided to do the FIRST EVER buybacks and used the budget
> surplus to buy back t=bonds. Treasury Department planned to buy back
> $30 billion USD worth of t-bond. Some of my profit was gone due to this
> announcement. "$30 billion" again! "$30 billion" must be a very
> unlucky number for me. Why did Treasury Department do this? M3 growth
> rate was at an annualized rate of 22% in the last quarter of 1999, this
> was even higher than that of 1998. (see above) So, if Treasury
> Department hadn't intevened, T-bond would have crashed.
>
> Well, life goes on. After all these years and all these trades, I at
> least learn that the market is never free. Manipulations are always
> there and if a big trader manipulates the market, he will be thrown into
> jail. If, in these cases, governments manipulated the market, well,
> .. I am sure that this bubble will burst and a depression will hit
> us. Gov't will blame it on the "greedy" traders and "evil"
> capitalists. People will believe the government's explanation and we
> will have "new dealssssssss". Free market does not cause depression;
> governments and central banks do!
>
> Back to the future, I saw a good trade: long Australian dollar and/or
> long
> Canadian dollar. They are not essential for the bubble, so central
> banks won't intervene. Without central banks, my FFEE shall bring me
> all the bacons. The expected bull run shall start from now to summer of
> 2000; so I still can fight my way back. This trade is fundamentally and
> technically solid. Technically, a breakout from a huge and converging
> triangle has occurred and now it is the pullback. I can enter positions
> during this pullback. (i.e. retracement) The risk is quite low and the
> potential reward is hugh. Fundamentally, commodity price index has
> broken out on the upside. Cotton, grains, oilseeds, crude oil, crude
> products, cattle, hogs are all shooting upward. Commodity based
> currencies, such as Australian dollar and Canadian, almost always follow
> suit. After my calculation of price objective, I think I can make it
> big on this one.
>
> I prefer CD to AD because the volume on
> AD is too thin. However, looking at price objective, AD has a bigger
> potential with a far higher price objective. Fundamentally, Australian
> economy relies even more on commodity price than Canadian economy. So,
> it makes sense.
>
> Any opinion? Any thought?
>
> Any comment will be appreciated!
>
> The above are for general information only, not for trading purpose.
>
> Mervin
|